Good morning everyone and welcome to the Deutsche Bank Clean Tech, Utilities and Power Conference. Today we’re going to have Universal Display Corporation present. Universal Display Corporation is a leader in OLED materials and technology and with us today is Sid Rosenblatt, the company’s Chief Financial Officer.

Let me hand it off to Sid for his presentation.

Sid Rosenblatt

Thank you. Welcome everyone. I’m Sid Rosenblatt from Universal Display. Universal Display is a technology development company. We formed a company that fund the research at Princeton University and the University of Southern California in the field of emissive materials and we continue to fund the research. Please read all of our 10-K’s and 10-Q’s. You see these every time. We all pay our lawyers a lot of money to write these things and I’d appreciate it if somebody would read it, so.

We have developed a technology in organic light emitting diode technology and you hear a lot about it today. In 1996 when we started funding the research and started getting patents in this, no one really knew what light emission materials are.

The key to Universal Display’s technology is our power efficiency, convention OLED technology. It was developed by Kodak Corporation in the early 80’s and what our scientists at Princeton and USC were able to do, is come with a much more efficient light emitting material. In that we use 75% less power to get the same amount of light out of the devise that a conventional OLED would.

We have very broad patents on the architecture of using what we call phosphorescent OLEDs, phosphorescence and I’ll sort of go through what that is, but it is a process of converting energy into usable light. In addition to that, we provide and make the materials that go into the devices. Today it is in Smartphones, it’s in all of the Galaxy phones, it’s in all of Samsung Galaxy phones, it is also in the Razor phone, it is in a number of other devices.

Recently you have heard that Samsung and LG, each are talking about introducing OLED TVs, 55-inch TVs, an estimated price about $9000. I don’t think they are going to be selling them in Best Buy’s at $9000, but it is product introduction. The TV, some of you may have seen it at TES, either one of them. They are very bright. They inherently switch on and off three times faster than video rates.

One of the keys to OLED technology that’s different in any other technology is that it has a true black background than when you light it. You put light up the pixels and you get a million to one contrast ratio and the 55-inch TV was a quarter of an inch thick and is very power efficient. So we expect these to be in the market in real mass production, probably the end of 2013, early 2014.

One of the other areas that is currently really in the very early stages, but those folks are at Lightfair and can also use these materials for lighting applications. These are very efficient light emitters. You have a different form factor. They are thin. It’s as thin as wherever two pieces of glass, you put it between or if you put it on plastic or foil, it’s as thin as whatever substrate you put it on.

These are as I said in a number of the products, Samsung and Nokia, it’s been in Sony Playstation, it’s in HTC phones, been in a Google phone, so pretty much all of these devices have come from Samsung mobile displays and again, the TV, that was at CES and is now being introduced. LG intends to introduce it I think next month at the Cannes Film Festival and theirs is also a 55-inch TV.

We have more than 1,400 patents issued and pending worldwide, in the basic architecture of using a phosphorus emitter, down to specific materials that we make and sell. We have our materials made for us by PPG industries and then we sell these. It’s our partners that we have today. We have a long-term license agreement with Samsung. Samsung is about 95% or 96% of the OLED market today.

You have a number of others that are entering it, LG, Pioneer has been making OLED displays for their car stereos for about the past seven years. Small volume, but it is in all the Pioneer car stereos. We have signed license agreement for lighting applications with Konica Minolta, with LG Chem, with Showa Denko, with Panasonic Idemitsu Lighting Company, Lumiotec and we also have a license agreement with DuPont Corporation to make and sell (inaudible) OLED TVs. We signed that agreement about seven years ago. They have not made any at this time and I do not believe that they intend to make any.

We also worked with AUO. AUO I believe will probably be the next after LG to enter the market place. They have said that they will have mobile devices in the market in the second half of this year. We’ve been working with Sony Corporation for a number of years. They have a limited OLED R&D line and it’s been reported that they are talking to a number of other companies that actually have OLED TVs made for them.

We’ve worked with Fraunhofer Institute and a number of other universities and institutions around the world. Fraunhofer actually works with a number of the lighting companies in Germany. We’ve worked with Epson over the years, with NEC Lighting, Moser Baer, an Indian manufacturer of solar cells, but they are looking at and they are building a OLED lighting pilot facility outside of Rochester in New York. That’s part of a DOE program and we also work with pretty much all the other display companies that we have not signed license agreements with.

This is the chart that talks about the growth in the OLED market. I’ve had this chart in my presentation for seven years and it looks just like this for the past seven years. The only thing different is the years underneath have changes. However at this point the OLED market is actually starting to take off and I sort of laugh whenever I do this and that last year the OLED market was about $3 billion. The OLED display piece of it was about $3 billion annually.

This is Q4 estimates. I think that 2012 number is probably high, but I do believe that it’s probably realistically between $6 billion and $7 billion on an annual basis and once you get to 2015, if the capacity has been announced or has been reported, that number by 2015 maybe low and beyond that the display sort of just adds 10% a year.

So an OLED is a very thin devices. An OLED is, if you essentially take a piece of glass and you put transistors on it and use the transistors that you do with any liquid, with an LCD instead of using a more of a silicon transistor they use those temperature poly silicon transistors and they are working on something called oxide transistors.

You then put layers of film and depending on your architecture you have anywhere from seven to nine layers of film and then you put another piece of glass on top and you seal it. The entire layer that emits light is 1 to 1000, to the thickness of hair. So whatever substrate you put these on, it’s as thick as the entire devices.

The key is in the organic stack of these emissive materials. So you use red, green and blue dots to make all the colors of the rainbow, very similar if you put a magnifying glass up to your CRT or through LCD, you would see red, green and blue and dots and you mix all those colors.

The way that OLEDs work is materials that light up. You put current into a molecule, that is a red molecule. It goes into an excited state, creates energy, then it recombines to it’s original state and the energy that creates comes out in the form of either light or heat. Conventional OLEDs from the physics of the molecule, 25% of that energy was converted into usable light, 75% was wasted as heat. It’s called the single state emitted light and a triplet state did not.

What our scientists were able to do is figure out a process of converting that triple energy into usable light, so we now get in theory a 100% internal quantum efficiency. In English it means we use 75% less power to get the same amount of light. So it’s very important and that for mobile devices it extends the battery life.

As you get to larger devices where it’s a wall plug, energy is important, but more importantly when your making larger and larger TVs is you have to manage the heat that goes up in a device, because you prolong the carrying through, because these have millions of pixels and by putting less current through the devices, you have less heat to manage and that’s really the key as you get to larger and larger displays in using phosphorescence or using our technology, is the fact that we use less heat – I’m sorry, we create less heat, therefore your circuitry can be less complicated and you don’t have to spend money in heat management and copper heat syncs or other technologies. So it’s not just for mobile devices of extended battery, which is clearly very important, but is also TV applications.

If you make these on plastic and if you put it between two pieces of plastic and that’s how thin the entire device is; whatever two pieces of plastic or we put them on stainless steel foil. The layers of film that are in here, you can use a what’s called a transparent cathode, so that when the device is turned off, it’s clear as window glass and this has actually architectural opportunity, particularly in lighting, where you have a light source that you can turn off and it’s clear and then when you turn it on it lights up. You can have walls sconces and chandeliers that literally disappear until you put current into them.

So it’s one of the areas for OLED lighting applications that we think will allow OLED lighting get into the market and niche markets and you can make them on flexible substrates, so you can have conformable light sources. So there’s a number of ways to get into these markets without having to get into a market and trying to compete with a $0.59 light bulb. So we think that’s one of the keys to our technology.

As I said, all the devices use red, green and blue and using just our red technology, when you are putting it in a device, it uses less power than efficient LCDs. If you made an all-fluorescent device or what’s called an all-codec device, you would use more power than LCD technology and nobody would make one. So if it wasn’t for phosphorescence, I think OLED probably would have died a number of years ago.

Our team, we work with a number of different companies and with universities around the world. We also have our materials made for us by PPG industries, in their specialty chemical group. We’ve been working with them for about 10 years. Their transition lens group makes our materials for us. We then take them to our facility, device qualify them and then we shift them out of our facility, so our materials, which pretty much are a fabulous supplier of materials.

The real reason that OLED technology is starting to really take off today is that these materials, the lifetime of the materials were always the key. When we first started the company, the dot that lit up under our microscope at Princeton lasted for about 10 second and then it was dead and it was like, okay, you can make this bleed (ph), but they need to last a little longer and the codec technology at that time was still very nascent also and about 2005, we built our own chemistry labs, we built our own synthetic chemistry facility, because we knew that unless the lifetime of the material could go into these devices, they really would never be able to have commercial applications.

Just to give you can idea, every 10,000 hours is six hours a day for four years and when you see on the right hand side it says lifetime LTE 50%. It doesn’t mean that they go off completely, but they go from an original luminance to 50% brightness and that’s really what the metrics were for a number of years.

If you can get 50,000 hours to 50% brightness, then the industry felt that they can start building facilities and build commercial facilities, which is what Samsung did in 2006 and 2007. There’s been a number of stops and starts in some of these areas, but today we now look at lifetime from initial brightness to 95%, essentially no degradation.

If you remember your old CRTs, you will probably have a bunch of them in our house at some place, because we can’t pick them up and throw them away, but over time the picture quality just got a little not quite as bright and they work the same and that over time the materials just did not get excited and emit light at the same rate. So we would dilute the RTs just because it didn’t work as good or you bought a new one and you say, well, look how much better the picture is. The only difference in the picture quality is that your phosphors on your screen were new.

OLED technology does the same thing. Over time they degrade and don’t emit as much light, whereas with an LCD, with your laptop, if the backlight goes out, it goes black, so it’s a different technology. LCDs are backlit technologies and light gets reflected off the layers of liquid crystal.

So that we now have lifetime, where manufacturers are built-in TVs with very little degradation. Red and green materials meet their specifications. Even yellow materials, which I’ll talk a little bit about why you would use yellow. Our blue phosphorescent emitter does not meet commercial specifications at this time. The blue florescent material that had been around for a number of years is what’s being used in all devices today. We are working to get that blue phosphorescence lifetime, but blue is a very different color in the emissive field. It was difficult for lasers, it was difficult in a number of other areas, LEDs, the last one to be developed was the blue.

We also have been working over the years with a number of printing companies. We’ve had a five-year relationship with Epson Corporation. Today that these devices are made in what are called vacuum chambers, very old semi conductor manufacturing technology, where you put the materials in a vacuum chamber and you put your red materials and the source at the bottom, you heat them, they vaporize, they rise and then you have your glass.

It could be a very large, it could be a 2.5 meters diagonal with a shadow mask blocking out the areas you don’t want the material to go and you deposit your red materials. It is a slow process, shadow mask blocking the areas. It is technology that is complicated and expensive.

If you can take a printer, whether it’s an ink jet printer or some nozzle printing technology or any other way of depositing spin coding and use solution based materials, you should be able to manufacture these much faster than you can in vacuum chambers.

The issue that spill through today is that it doesn’t work, particularly for small area of displays, where your putting 300 dots per inch, it’s very difficult to get printers to spray the colors without having any cross talk. So it is very complicated. We have materials that work if it does work and are phosphorus emissive materials can be used either in liquid or in its other form.

Today we have almost 100 employees and we started working with Princeton and our principal investigator from Princeton actually moved to Michigan. He’s head of R&D and we’d continue to fund research at Michigan, Princeton, USC. We fund the research in the OLED field and in return, we get the exclusive rights to all the intellectual property that’s developed that those three universities today. And we do that also with a number of other universities around the world; as long as we get the intellectual property, we will fund the research. Essentially we get Ph.D. students for $25,000 a year, so it is a park and basement price.

We work with a number of other companies in the OLED filed also. These companies make some of the other materials in the stack. As I said, your device is anywhere from seven to nine layers, depending on your hold transporters, electron transporters, other materials. So we have relationships with companies that make those other materials, because these relationships to be perfectly honest have really helped us in the lifetime of our material system.

We were just working on the emitters, the undeceive (ph) layer and host material that goes in there, but the transporters, the electron transporters and hold transport and all the stuff that actually just runs the current through the device, all impact lifetime and color.

So we started working with a number of them, with customers. In the beginning they would not work with us, because we would say send us your materials and we’ll work on it and they said, well you send us your phosphorus emitters and we’ll work on it, because neither one of us trusted the other one. But when you work with Samsung and they say, you need to work with Nippon Steel, you need to work with Idemitsu or SSC, then it makes it a lot easier. The same thing with Idemitsu, we started working it with Sony Corporation.

Our basic patent cover what we call phosphorescence, it is a right to use a device that goes, that converts energy from this triple state into usable light. Then we have another layer of architecture patents that are called organometallic iridium complexes. In English what that means is these are the only that actually phosphorus today. And then we go down to other architectures and say, if you use anything that emits lights and using this technology, its covered by our architecture patent.

The second piece of our intellectual property is we have patented materials, so these emissive materials, these red materials, green materials, yellow materials that we sell, all of them themselves are patented materials, so we are constantly developing new materials and new systems.

In addition, we have patents on White OLED, on using a complete plastic back plain in an OLED, it’s a patent that we have on light out coupling, which just means a way of enhancing a light that comes out when you are talking about lighting applications and an encapsulation technology to make if you’re making a plastic device or if you not using glass on the top and bottom, you need barrio layer technology, so that oxygen and moisture don’t get to these emissive materials, which causes them to degrade.

How patents have been issued around the world, there’s issues in pending around the world. There have been a number of administrative challenges and the patent offers. I think those of you who follow us, probably have had questions about this at some point. These are all within patent offices here in Japan, Korea and the European EPO, European Patent Office.

There are no challenges; there are no law suites in the US. All of the challenges that we have are not from our customers, but they are from companies that either want to get into the OLED material business or have other architectures that they’d like to use and I’d be happy to answer any of your questions about specific items.

I think if you went to Lightfair you would have probably saw on the right hand side, the Acuity light panel, the Acuity mix, the Luminara and LG Chem made the light panels that go into that device, very thin, very bright and these are pretty cool, but not really products in terms of their ability to really be sold at any reasonable price today. But it is actually moving much quicker than we thought. And we can get in terms of energy, since this is a ClinTec conference, you get very efficient light coming out of these devices.

Here efficiency is to get anywhere from 55 to 72 lumens. We actually have in our labs over a 100 lumens per watt and in terms of lifetime, we can get 30,000 hours a panel at 58 lumens per watt with a CRE of 83, which is a very efficient device and it is good enough for initial applications. 30,000 hours of lifetime is pretty good in terms of unconducive light bulbs a 1000 hours.

LEDs work about 50,000 or even longer. I do think that OLED technology and LED technology are really very compatible technologies. Since the OLED’s are surface submitters, we can light up very large broad areas, as opposed to a point source, which an LED is and in this room you have the chandeliers that are just to fuse light and then you got high apps that would be more of a point source.

So in this room you can have ceiling entirely or diffident areas that are coded to give you very diffused light and high intensity light will be used for LED technologies. So we don’t see ourselves as comparators with LEDs; however, I do know that the LED companies sort of say, think that.

And as I said, you can make these transparent; you can make these on flexible substrates, so we do think that the introduction of these is something that can be done at a premium price, whereas architects can use OLED lighting as a way of putting it inside of a cabinet of under a cabinet or in corners where you cannot normally have lighting.

One of the other areas that we think is really starting to take off as your seeing announcements by Samsung on flexible displays. It is made on an unbreakable substrate, a truly bendable, flexible display. I think it’s a number of years away, but if you can make this on plastic and put it on your cell phone, you now have an unbreakable device, you have a lighter weight device, you have a thinker device and you can conform this display around the sides.

I know that the Samsung demo that they had, actually had the screen go around the sides. So if it’s in your pockets you can look down and see who is calling and see what the message is, so there is a lot of information around the entire device.

We have been making these actually and delivering them. We delivered this to the government about a year and half ago. This is on a stainless steel foil; it’s a risk-mounted unit, LG made the back plane,L-3 Communications made that harness, we make the OLED screen. Soldiers today carrying around a 20 to 25 pound ruggedized laptop, this is under a pound. So you can send and receive, see everything that you would see on your laptop. So there is 10 of these that were delivered, that are actually being field tested.

We don’t intend to make these, but we want to enable the manufactures to move forward on a flexible technology and we’ve worked on it and said, one of the key flexible technologies and capsulation and we had developed a thin film encapsulation, that is early stage we have a prototype in our facility. This is a patented process that is a single layer, one chart, put encapsulate on it.

Today they are using – Samsung we know is using a process from a company called Vitex, that is a multi-step encapsulant that has six different steps. So it is really not a high volume manufacturing process. This has the potential to change that.

Just to give you a little history about the financials, our revenues last year were $61.2 million and the company over the 15, the 13 to 16, we lost about $20 million a year 2009, 2010. Last year we made $3 million on a quarter. In 2012 it was up. We do not have any Samsung license fees in that. I will go over that. In the quarter we lost $1.2 million compared to ’11.

We report our license fees from Samsung on a bi-annual basis, because it’s a fixed fee as opposed to a royal bearing license agreement. Our payment terms with Samsung have actually been every June and December since 2005. Initially we would get a royalty report every quarter and then they would pay us.

When we renegotiated the agreement with a fixed amount, which is an increasing amount each year and we disclose that amount for 2012 is $30 million, we never changed the payment schedule. So because it is a license fee as opposed to a royalty, license fee accounting applies, which is dominated by the software industry and I think they used to report revenue that they never really got paid for. So it essentially turns license fee accounting into cash accounting. So we disclosed what it would have been. If we could have, we would have reported $7.5 million additional in this quarter.

We have given guidance for this year between $90 million and $110 million of revenue for the year and we just reiterated the guidance on our call a couple of days ago. We have about $340 million of cash in the bank. In 2011 we were provided a cash from our operating activates of about $19 million. We have no debt and we have about $46 million shares outstanding, so the company’s capital structure and financial position is pretty much the best that it’s even been.

So our business is a high margin business. Our margins past breakeven on our license fees are 97%. We pay 3% to our university partners of our license fees. Our material sales margins since these are proprietary material that we also sell, are approximately 90% also. So when you get to past break even, it is a highly leverage model where it’s similar to other licensing companies. We sort of looked at the licensing revenue and the material revenue pretty much the same. They both are 90% gross margin businesses and as the market grows, we expect our business to follow the OLED market.

And with that, I have five minutes for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Unidentified Participant

(Inaudible).

Sid Rosenblatt

That is correct. Samsung has the right to sell OLED devices. They have a license from us to sell them and if Sony is a customer, that’s in the PlayStation product, HTC is a customer, there’s a number of customers. So if Sony wants to buy them, then they can buy them from Samsung. If they want to make it themselves, then have to get a license from us. Samsung is merchant of displays. Samsung mobile displays will sell displays to a number of different customers.

Unidentified Participant

They actually re-sell.

Sid Rosenblatt

Yes

Unidentified Participant

So the product is the material that you’re buying.

Sid Rosenblatt

They cannot resell materials, they can sell end-products. If Samsung makes displays that they then put into either the HTC or the Sony PlayStation, Samsung cannot give the right to use our technology to anybody else, nor can they re-sell our materials to anybody else.

Unidentified Participant

I might be very disappointed in material sales in the quarter and if you could talk about the seasonality and what might have caused the disappointment. Second, in terms of Samsung’s restrictions in using other people’s domain or products, there is concern that competition is getting very fierce in that side of the business. Does Samsung have the flexibility to buy from DuPont or anybody lese then?

Sid Rosenblatt

In terms of the first question on the materials sales being disappointing in the first quarter, we as we said on the call, we sold less green materials in the first quarter. Our red emitter sales actually were up about 150% compared to the first quarter of 2011. Our red emitter sales pretty much followed the market.

Green we sold in third and fourth quarter in larger quantities than we did in the first quarter. Those green emissive materials were in we understand two specific products or other customers; one was a Sony and the other one is Razor Phone. I also understand that the Sony product is not selling that well.

We are talking to Samsung and as we’ve said on the call, we expect green to be adopted much more broadly in Samsung products in the second half of this year. So we expect the green emitter sales to go up in the second half of this year as it is adopted into Samsung’s products.

Regarding Samsung has a right to put phosphorescent emitters in their OLED devices. They also have agreed to buy all of the red and green Phosphorescent emitters from us. If someone – and they also cannot buy materials from anybody that violates our material patents. So if Samsung knowingly buys materials that violate our patents, they violate our license agreement.

If DuPont is selling them materials that violate our patents, they cannot buy them and if DuPont is selling materials that violate our patents, I insure we will have a conversation with DuPont about that. I also believe I have not heard that DuPont is really selling any quantities of materials. I know that Samsung has licensed their nozzle printing process, but we also have materials that work in printing, so we have solution base prosperous emitters.

Unidentified Participant

(Inaudible).

Sid Rosenblatt

We always hear rumors that there are companies that are doing (inaudible) high metal and Korea challenged all of our material patents and they said in their challenge that they want to get into a challenging Phosphorescent patent, because they want to get into the Phosphorescent material business and they are blocked by Universal Display.

So we intend to make sure that our patents are enforced. They has been at least one company that made materials that we had a conversation with and they longer make them.

Unidentified Participant

(Inaudible).

Sid Rosenblatt

There’s been a number of challenges in Japan. Japan is a jurisdiction that historically is the most narrow – they view patents most narrowly of any jurisdictions in the world as opposed to the U.S., which is the exact opposite. U.S. grants very broad patents. Japan gives very narrow patents.

We have had a number of decisions in Japan on specific patents where we’ve had some of the patents invalidated or some of them have been changed and we are in the process of appealing them. We believe that even in any, in any patent licensing company, you will see that there are people who will challenge patents in all different jurisdictions for different reasons.

And one reason why we have 1,400 patents, we have a very broad architecture of patents and multiple layers of patents that will cover the same process, is we don’t believe any of these individual decisions will impact our ability to license our technology and in fact after the Japanese patent decisions came down, we signed a license agreement with Samsung and subsequent to the Japanese decision we have signed four license agreements in Japan.

So there has been some, we are appealing them, we will continue to appeal them. We’ve had the same issue in Europe and interestingly enough in Europe, one of the patents that were invalidated in Japan was up held in Europe.

So it really is, so you would have to make and sell whatever that was in Japan only. If you made of sold it outside of Japan, then our other patent would apply and there are patents above the patents that have been validated in Japan and they are still considered valid until the final appeal.

Unidentified Participant

(Inaudible).

Sid Rosenblatt

You have to talk to the scientist. One reason is that in the visual spectrum blue is the shortest wave length in terms of the – and when you have a very short wave length, what the scientists tell me is that the molecule itself, the way that these molecules work is they actually go in an excited state, they create energy and then they recombine. And the shorter the wave length, the more unstable it is, which means that when it recombines to its original form, it doesn’t quite do it all the time and nearly blows itself apart.

And it was an issue with – when LG invented the blue LED. It was like literally everybody in the industry went, why didn’t I think of that, it wasn’t that hard, but it is difficult and we have been working on it for a long time.

We have light blue that has a lifetime that needs lighting applications. But we do not have a deep blue and in blue there’s that florescent emitter, is the best they have and it is not the longest lived of al this, of all of the colors, so they do have to do a number of things in their mixing scheme, to make sure that the blue material lasts as long as long as the others. One is you change the current going through it. As it starts to degrade, you then put more current in.

Unidentified Participant

Do you know if DuPont today is violating your patents? And/or I recently saw like a side deck from DOW Chemical and they talked about OLED and their R&D efforts in it and is there any awareness of…

Sid Rosenblatt

We do not if anybody is violating our patents today and there are a number of R&D efforts in this industry, sort of most people do a lot of R&D on their own. That’s when you start selling commercial quantities where it will soften.

Unidentified Participant

Have you started the licensing that you know, the lighting marking and if not, when do we expect to start?

Sid Rosenblatt

We’ve actually signed five license agreements in the general way. We signed with Showa Denko, with Konica Minolta, with Panasonic Idemitsu Lighting Company, with Lumiotec and Moser Baer. There are a number of other lighting companies; LG Chem actually made the lights that are in the Acuity Brand.

There are clearly two other big lighting companies out there who are talking about OELD technology. Each of them are challenging our patents in Europe. As part of a group, an entire German group is challenging all of our patents. It’s the same group of companies and Merck BSF (ph), Osram, Philips and (inaudible) Chemical are the ones who have challenged our patents in Europe.

The first challenge was on our flexible display patent, which we won and they are appealing. There was a decision a couple of months ago where it was iridium organometallic complex. Well 15 claims on that and there were 15 claims on what’s called electroluminescent layer. They disallowed the electroluminescent layer, but left the OLED layer, which is all we really cared about, since we are not in semiconductor manufacturing.

However, they have appealed the Organometallics and we have appealed the electroluminescent layer and the next one has not come up. So we do believe that eventually because of phosphorescence, because of the efficiencies of it, you will have to use phosphorescence in the lighting applications and some people use this as a way of negotiating.

Unidentified Participant

You see like phosphor, remove phosphor and LED has potential competition in OLED.

Sid Rosenblatt

I’m not sure what that is?

Unidentified Participant

Just remove phosphor, that’s for the phosphor instead of in the LED that could be moved in there.

Sid Rosenblatt

I think those phosphors are different than our phosphorus emitters. There are – like the old GRT had phosphors in there, but are different than what we call phosphorus emitters. I think that technology is different than our organic light emitting technology.

One more?

Unidentified Participant

What happened (inaudible)?

Sid Rosenblatt

Well, we are not a manufacture of end light products. So we are licenser of architecture and material. My understanding is in the industry they really need to get their cost down by a decent order of magnitude to compete with general lighting. But general lighting is something that is changing over time.

LEDs done compete in terms of price with incandescent light bulbs. I think that the OLED lighting industry will grow by target and niche markets, by having transparency, flexibility, conformability, very thin and all the light source is literally an inch thick and the luminaries are very different.

Right now when we have florescent tubes we have a big – of that $50 florescent device, you’ve got $30 worth of metal and $5 worth of tubes. OLEDs happen to be very different. OLEDs are almost 80% or 90% of the product will be the actual light source, with very little of the fixture.

So over time they will get their cost down. No one has committed to build a high volume facility to see if they can get the cost down yet. All the faculties are literally what are called Gen 2, very smaller six inch pieces of glass. Perfect.

Unidentified Company Representative

Thank you Sid. I really appreciate it. Thank you everyone. Enjoy the conference.

Sid Rosenblatt

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.